February 24, 2020 Video Board Meeting

Transcript

Describer:

AGENDA

Board of Directors Meeting

Monday, February 24, 2020, at 6:00 p.m.

7404 Yorkshire Drive, Castle Pines, CO 80108

1. Call to order the regular meeting/pledge of allegiance.

2. Roll call/announcement of quorum/disclosure of potential conflicts.

3. Consider approving February 24, 2020 board meeting agenda.

4. Consider approving minutes of the 2020 budget work session that occurred on November 7, 2019.

5. Consider approving minutes of the November 18, 2019 board meeting.

6. Opening public comment period (3-minute maximum per person).

7. Open Space Managers Report.

8. Legal Counsel’s Report.

1. Consider approving the annual administrative resolution.
2. Consider ratifying the content of the transparency notice of 2020 filed with the state of Colorado.
3. Consider ratifying the execution of the Second amendment of the Chatfield Management Agreement to add Dominion Water as a party.
4. Consider ratifying the Rose Rock easement.

9. Rate and Fee presentation.

-Public hearing comment period, on the proposed cost to service rate fee increase and the consideration of implementing same.

10. Closing public comment period (3-minute maximum per person)

11. Finance Director’s Report.

- Consider approving/ratifying the payables for months of November and December 2019 and January and February 2020 (Checks # 24788 - 25020).

-General Fund and debt service approve $75,424.52 and ratify $393,556.54, for a total of $468,991.06.

-The Enterprise Fund approve $81,703.29 ratifying $1,541,991.07 for a total of $1,623,694.36.

-Electronic payments ratify $1,387,899.21.

-Total expenditures of $3,480,584.63.

12. District Manager’s Report.

13. Directors Matters.

14. Adjournment.

Describer: The video starts on graphic with a white background and forest green letters which says “Castle Pines North Metropolitan District Board Meeting February 24, 2020”. The meeting opens on a shot of all board members present.

Board President David McEntire:

Good evening everybody. Welcome. Those of you, peering in online. Welcome. And thank you for coming this evening. I want to call to order the regular meeting of Monday, February 24th, 6 p.m., here at Castle Pines Metro District. With that, I would like to invite everyone to join us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Describer:

The board members and the audience rise from their seats and recite the Pledge of Allegiance, as the camera pans from left to right from the board to management staff to the audience and back to the board. When they are done, they sit down again.

All Speak:

I Pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Roll Call All Speak:

Would like to, conduct roll call and establish a quorum this evening when called upon. Please indicate your presence for the record as well as a disclosure of any potential conflicts, if any.

Board Member Director Chris Lewis:

Director Lewis. Present. No Conflicts.

Board Member Director Chuck Lowen:

Director Lowen. Present. No conflicts.

Board Member Director Denise Crew:

Director Crew. Present. No Conflicts.

Board Member Director Robert Merritt:

And Director Merritt. Present. No conflicts.

David:

Director McEntire is here. No. No conflicts.

David:

Item number three is a consideration of the approval of February 24th, 2020. Board meeting agenda has been presented and made available to those, both in attendance and those, accessing our website. Also, believing that, that that is in proper order, would like to have you consider making a motion, approving the minutes of the 2020 budget work session that occurred on November 7th and item five, consideration of approving the minutes of the regular board meeting that occurred on November 18th. So there would be three items. If anyone like to take a stab at that motion.

Chuck:

I'll make the motion that we approve the February 24th, 2020 board meeting agenda, which is item number three of your agenda number four. I'd like to include the considering of, consideration of approving the minutes of 2020 budget work session that occurred on November 7th. And number five, consider approving the minutes of the regular board meeting that occurred on November 18th, 2019.

Robert:

I second it.

Board Voting All Speak:

We've got a motion on the floor, a second. All those, willing to approve the motion when called upon, signify by giving as a yay or if not, a nay. Director Crew. Yay! Director Merritt. Yay! Director Lowen, Yay! And Director Lewis. Yay! Director McEntire is a yay! We have a unanimous consent on items three, four, and five.

David:

That brings us to item number six, the open public comment period. Keeping in mind that we have a three minute maximum per person. This evening, we are blessed with a number of folks that would like to speak. And in no particular order, let me recognize, and if you'd come to the podium giving your name and address for the record, Carl Carl Suhani, welcome.

Describer:
Carl Suhani, a Castle Pines resident, rises and comes to podium facing the board to the right of audience seating and to the left side of the board, near staff seating which is adjacent 90 degrees to the board and to the audience.

Carl Suhani, Castle Pines Resident:

Thank you. My name is Carl Suhani, 7026 Esperanza Drive and Esperanza Castle Pines. Tonight, I'm here to talk to you about two topics. So first off, thank you for the opportunity to address you. The first one is, I just wanted to represent the Esperanza HOA board, and many of our residents. And we want to thank you for your support and the city of Castle Pines, support for their position in dissolving of the Master Association. We even had the honor of having a Councilwoman Mulvey attend one of our meetings and answered some questions for us, at one of our HOA meetings late last year.

The Esperanza HOA and many of the residents strongly believe that the dissolution of the Master Association is in the best interests of everybody in Castle Pines. We believe that the funds should be distributed back to each of the HOA fees, based on the number of residents, and then divide it out by the residents within an HOA. We feel that the HOA’s would be in a much better position to utilize the funds to improve the Castle Pines City in areas such as Esperanza has. We've invested a lot of money in our perimeter fence, landscaping that is visible to the entire community. And I think a lot of the HOA’s would be able to utilize the excess funding available currently in the Master Association to improve the entire city and, where it lies. So we want to thank you for your support. And if there's anything we can do, we would definitely want to participate. The second reason I'm here is as a resident and not representing the HOA. As I started to do my research, and I shared some documents with you.

I'll be honest, I was shocked at the amount of funding that is spent to run this HOA. I'm just going to go over a couple high level ones. About $53,000 in management fee not counting, all the funds that are spent for when you purchase a home and you have to pay a transfer fee, which is not even shown on the budget. $20,000 in legal fees, which I know some of that was used to not do a community improvement, such as the fence along Castle Pines Parkway. There's $2200 for an event coordinator, advertising, a website that I feel is very outdated and $39,000 in social events.

So basically, $108,000 in expenses were spent and the services that I calculated was about $42,000. So, $39,000 was given for social events and, and then there was also $3,000 in community improvements, which I'm not sure where that is. We know it wasn't put into the fence on Castle Pines Parkway. But again, we know that the HOA’s would probably reinvest much more than $3,000 a year, into the into making the community look better.

The thing that really concerns me is when you look at the pros and cons on the website of the HOA. One of the things they claim is that $40 a year is a great value or a good value, and for who? So spending $100,000 for $42,000 in service I don't think it's a good ROI. ROI. And again, funding community projects was listed as a pro $3,000 an entire year from 100 over $130,000 in income is not a lot reinvested in the community and that really concerns me as a resident and you you as well, since you all live within Castle Pines. I really believe that the association is working for its own survival. So, so thank you for your time, and I appreciate you allowing me to share some feedback.

Describer:

Carl takes his seat.

David:

Carl, thank you very much. Directors. It's ironic that you bring that, budget issue to the forefront of part of what you had to say and, and, while this board is, is, talked about that some time ago, if it wasn't a byproduct of, right, I believe it was a byproduct of the management fee, which was, the lion's share certainly.

But also, attorneys of what seem to be, the expense associated with utilization of attorneys continue. And then, accountants, which are typically compliance people but with those three line items, it was, well over 70%, of the budget. And that was the budget with the plug factor of 75,000 that went to the city. But, thank you, Carl, for all of that.

We're aware of it and appreciate you bringing that up again into our attention. With that, did we get your address? Did you? Okay, good. Deborah, you're up next.

Describer: Deborah Mulvey, City Council Member, approaches the podium.

Deborah Mulvey, City Council Member:

Deborah Mulvey speaking as a city council person. I represent district one, but also at large for the whole city. I'm speaking solely to clarify something that we have a little difficulty communicating to the residents and that is the misconception around who organizes what activities. There is a misconception about who organizes concerts and events around the city. And I'd like to clarify that the city has started to put on in the past several years more family events, more family related concerts, some in collaboration with other entities like the chamber and some individually. Some with donations from locals like The Ridge to put on movies.

There are some pieces of information floating around that the Master HOA or the chamber does things like the movies. I'd like to clarify that the movies at The Ridge are put on by the city, they are at low cost, he land is donated by The Ridge. That the fireworks are done at the cost to the city, and that the bands and the party in the park and some of the other events are a collaboration with the city and the chamber.

So if there was a change in the concerts which the Master HOA puts on, the city could easily take care of some of those things. But it would not change what the city does, nor would the city seek to take over or do anything different. It would continue to do what it's doing with the family events, and if there's a desire to do something additional, we would listen to the residents and do those events. Thank you.

Describer: Deborah takes her seat.

David:

Thank you, Deborah, for that clarification. Have a number of of folks that indicated that they would possibly or maybe, speak. Keep in mind that we have another, open comment session towards the end of the meeting. But with, well, I don't have anybody else with a definitive, yes. Is there anyone that would like to make their comments now?

Yes, sir. I'm sorry? I did not say yes. Are you signed up? I am signed up but I did not say yes. Sure I'll make the adjustment, come on up, introduce yourself, give us your address and I'll make the adjustment. Welcome.

Describer: Andy Sosnicky, a Castle Pines resident, approaches the podium.

Andy Sosnicky, Castle Pines Resident:

Thanks. My name is an. Press the button. Hello, hello. My name is Andy Sosnicky. S-o-s-n-i-c-k-y I live just two houses down, 7481 Berkshire Lane. I've been a resident maybe longer than anybody in this room. 33 years in that house when we were just a happy go lucky unincorporated area of Douglas County. I'm not here to defend or deny the value of the Master Association, but what I am here to say is, from what I've been reading, we've been treated very unfairly, The Claremont Estates and Huntington Ridge, for reasons that we were no part of back in 33 years ago whenever they did, the bureaucracy. Our two subdivisions we’re not HOA’s which is fine.

We were happy. We're still happy. But what we're afraid of is that something that we have no control over is being taken away from us by the residents that have their own interests, and are leaving us naked. I don't think that's right. I don't think they should have to take care of us, but we should not be victimized by them. So I'm asking that and I know it's not your direct responsibility, but you're a player at the upper level of all this magic that goes on above just plain old residents.

So what I'm hoping is that you organizations in the metro district, the HO, the Master Association, the various individuals, whoever it is treats us fairly. We don't want anything we're not entitled to. We just don't want to be bothered by incurring costs that we didn't ask for, don't need, but we don't want to be left stranded, suing our neighbors because they painted their house purple and parked their outrageously large trailer in their driveway or whatever. So whatever there's been working for 33 years that I've mentioned, I've been here for 33 years. We'd like to be able to have that same level of goodness without having to form our own standalone organization and pay lawyer fees and all kinds of things that I think it's roughly 35 houses should not have to pony up.

We should be taken care of in some equitable way, is all I'm asking. I don't care about the $340,000. You know, it's a sunk cost to me. You know, if you want to give me 40 bucks back for 30 years, fine. If you don't want to give it, fine, I don't care. All I care about is that going forward, these two subdivisions are not considered second class or fifth class citizens of Castle Pines. We were here first, actually. So whatever can be done equitably is what I'm hoping that will be the turnout. Thank you for listening. Oh, thank you.

Describer: Andy takes his seat.

David:

Thank thank you, Andy. I think, Yes, sir. I would like to speak to. Come on up.

Describer: David Faria, a Castle Pines resident, approaches the podium.

David Farria, Castle Pines Resident:

Okay, okay. My name is David Faria. I live in Yorkshire Drive. I too as this previous gentleman lived in my house for over 25 years.

David:

Let me stop you there. Did you have an address? 7760 Yorkshire Drive. And and it's David, right?

David Faria:

David Faria F-a-r-i-a. Gotcha. Thank you. Now once again I, I lived here not as long as the previous gentleman, but I lived here for 25 years. When when we moved in here, we were set. We were given a set of covenants that we had to abide by. We accepted those covenants. I'm sure all you people live in an area that has covenants. This gentleman lives in an area that has covenants. We paid our dues each year. We were forced to pay those dues. And during those 25 years, we've had some neighbors, even myself, I've had I went against those covenants.

I got a letter saying, you've made a mistake, you need to correct it, I corrected it, okay. Now the situation now is that you people are the powers to be want to dissolve the Mass Association. That would leave us without covenants. And this gentleman said dissolving this association, the Master Association would benefit everybody. It would not benefit everybody. It would not benefit the people at Huntington Ridge. It would not benefit the people in Claremont. We would be without covenants. That means that anybody who moves into our neighborhood can put anything up they want.

They want to put 18 Wheeler in the backyard they can. If they want to put sheds back then, if they want to put a operate a business out of their out of their out of our property, they can. And the thing about our property in Huntington Ridge is that we have anywhere from an acre and a half to three acres of land. People out there love to move into our neighborhood knowing that there is no covenants. They can put what they want. They can operate a business out there, they can put trailers back there. They could put RV’s back there. They could put boat back there. They can build a 50 by 60 barn back there.

They can do anything they want. Is this what Castle Pines want? Does this what you want in your neighborhood? We all live here in Castle Pines. We all part of Castle Pines. What happens in one neighborhood affects everybody else. So you have to understand that, this is what the problem is. They're talking about you people talk about, well, there's money and it goes to waste, whatever. We're not arguing that point. What we want is a HOA that protects our interest. That's the main thing. And by dissolving this Master Association, it would leave us without protection. Do you understand that, sir? Kind of. Kind of. Time is up.Times up.

Describer: David Faria takes his seat.

David:

Thank you for your time. Before we.

Chris:

So let me, hold on, let me just comment. So this is an open forum, please. So let's all be respectful to everyone here. We're going to have a lot of folks with different opinions and we want to hear from everybody. So we appreciate you guys coming here and speaking. But just try not to be directing your comments at anyone specific. I'm okay with directing them to us. Direct it to me. I'm good. But try not to do that to the neighbors, okay? Thanks. Thank you. Chris.

David:

Let me chime in here for just a minute and purtfully it will help. David, the assertion that you made that, this board or any other entity, best I know is pursuing the dissolution of your covenants is inaccurate. The covenants are an at non-issue here. We're simply talking about an organization, that was created to enforce those covenants, to recognize those covenants, to exercise those covenants, to interpret those covenants, to be the recipient of comments, questions, and concerns about those covenants, as well as the design guidelines that we all, live with as a part of the record of each one of our properties.

My home has the master covenants on it, has a design guidelines like yours. Mine has one more set of dec or document, and that's a sub HOA. But that's a non issue. So no one is from this board. No one from the district is is pursuing the dissolution or abolishment or set aside of those decks, but rather this conversation partly started as a catalyst of the association, the organization, not enforcing those decks in your behalf or in my behalf or in other's behalf. Okay. It was specifically the fence along the parkway that started the conversation. It has grown. It has evolved, and it has come to our attention that within those same decks, that if the Master Association is as we know it today, is unwilling to act, unable to act, that the district by name can and will. It even goes on to say, and may bill accordingly. But that's not what we're after.

It's not what we're promoting. What we're promoting is kudos and accolades to those that have been here as long as you have, that have been a part of that Master HOA group in that organization for decades, that have done an outstanding job for our community, that has done a great job, to say the least. But that some of this believe has run its course, run its course in so much as as, Councilwoman Mulvey indicated, we have overlapping products and services now. And so why wouldn't we take a look at the efficiencies in the economies as a group of people looking to pursue the greatest for the least? It it's part of our DNA right? It, it is it has come to our attention with some of what we have characterized is, fiscal recklessness of the money that each and every one of us begin to be, the stewards of and ask somebody else to be but then, demonstrate otherwise. So again, it you you have to have covenants, conditions and restrictions that you will have to live with until you're no longer with us.

You have design guidelines same till death do us part, and you have this district until somebody else steps up to the plate, adopts those and. *inaudible speaking form attendees* Okay, I here's, here's this isn't a discussion. You had yours. I just wanted to clarify for a minute. Excuse me. I just wanted to clarify for a minute the inaccuracies. Okay. And while those can be debated, I want to offer myself effective immediately for anybody and everybody, a one on one or in whatever format and forum you want a meeting to discuss this any further, but I wanted to share that with you also that if there was any anxiety over that issue, I hope that it helped. And if we can continue the conversation, you can contact me.

My contact information is there. My colleagues are standing side by side with me. Whatever we can do to help clear up the inaccuracies in the misinformation, we want to be a party to as well. Okay? I don't have anybody else here that is signed up to, but I've got two hands in the air, sir.

Describer: Peter Thomas, a Castle Pines resident, approaches the podium.

Peter Thomas, Castle Pines Resident:

Hi my name is. My name is Peter Thomas. I live at 7981 Yorkshire Drive. David. Who will? And excuse me, Director McEntire who will enforce these covenants if we don't have anybody to oversee them?

David:

Currently, the district. The Metropolitan district? Sure. Grab the decks. I can give you the page if you would like, take a look at the decks. In fact, let me do it after the meeting. I'll give you the chapter and verse where it specifically says the district will, in the absence of the Master Association, be that entity that you look to for enforcement.

Peter:

Have they been enforcing this at all to date?

David:

Other than the fence issue? No.

Peter:

Okay. You say that you're not involved with the this dissolution. However, it seems what I've seen, you are strongly urging the dissolution of this. Is that not correct?

David:

Sure. That that that's correct. Based on, as we have put in print, the reasons that we have conveyed to everyone in the community.

Peter:

And you do know this will have a negative effect on these two home neighborhoods of Huntington Ridge and Claremont?

David:

Quite frankly, I thought otherwise. I began to believe their values will skyrocket. The appeal of their property will be enhanced. I see no detriment whatsoever.

Peter:

Why do you think that values will skyrocket if?

David:

They'll have an entity like the metro district that will enforce the covenants with them.

Peter:

What about a reorganization which was brought up in your letter, along with the city's letter of August 20th.

David:

That totally applaud any effort whatsoever and would play a part in that. If we could facilitate that or help in any way and have literally asked the management company myself, the management company, of the master association, if, if they'd be willing in our preparing to provide a proposal to the folks in those communities.

Peter:

Which I believe is what they're doing, although in your, working draft here, you specifically call them out for taking too long to do this process?

David:

Well, I don't recall that specific text in calling them out. There's nothing's too late for the moment. But but, it was my understanding from that management company as well, that there was an effort already exercised in those communities, a ballot that was already sent out. And the response that they received back would nullify any appetite at all for a proposal. So if I've got the wrong information from the horse's mouth, I apologize. But that's where it came from.

Peter:

So is that the ballot that was sent out to all the delegates that actually can vote?

David:

It was my understanding again, from this management company representative, it was a ballot that went to all the residents in those communities.

Chris

Can I add something here? Can I add something here?

David:

Hang on, Chris, just a sec. But, I want to remind you, we got three minutes.

Peter:

Okay, You know that we don't have any delegates in ca. Yes, aware yes. in Huntington Ridge and Claremont. So we were not part of that so we could not speak up on our behalf. Which is what we rely on with the Master Association, the Metro District Board and the city to look into all of the residents best interests.

David:

And until which time that Master Association, is goes somewhere? They are your contact. Utilize them. Right. Okay.

Peter:

What I would like to urge you board to do. Yeah. As I would urge the city board to do, is to allow them to look into what is in the best interest of all residents in the neighborhood. Allow whom? Allow the metro or the metropolitan, the Master Association. Yeah. To and I understand it's up to them to resolve this, but what I would like is not for you to urge them to do a dissolution, to let them have the time to look at what's going to be in the best interests of all of us that live in here. And if it's dissolution, or even to get that word out when we talk to some of our friends in other neighborhoods, most of them don't know about it. I'm not sure what the delegates have gotten out, what type of information they've disseminated to everyone.

David:

You can appreciate. It's typical. It's, the misinformation is abundant. I would agree with you, but it's an apple and orange scenario. They have they meaning the Master Association will continue to be urged by this district to dissolve. Lacking the efficiencies in the economies that have already been presented and are abundant in nature to convey in any other gathering you want to have, as I have invited, the recklessness of the use of those funds.

With attorneys lacking support and, and, and, defense, of your claims and needs as a, as is a group of homeowners to have those covenants enforced and to have those design guidelines enforced. We're going to continue and and we're not going to get in the way. Please move forward if we can help, if we can be of assistance, count on us. We're there with you. Not again you. Thank you.

Peter:

Again, I would just hope that you will give them the time, and you will get out the information on both sides of this. And again, referring to that August 20th letter where you came in and you stated the dissolution or the reorganization of those two neighborhoods that are directly affected. So whether the board here does maintain does come in and act as the governing body, I guess is yet to be seen in that it did not allude to that in your letter of August 20th. It said it will affect… Sure.. these two neighborhoods directly.

David:

And I figured that everyone had briefed themselves with the covenant. But barring that fact,

keep in mind they can do both at the same time. The will of our constituents, the residents of this community are overwhelmingly shared with us.

Their desire to have that dissolved, that entity dissolve. But in no case have they ever commented in a like kind and fashion about your communities or your neighborhoods rather tho.

Peter:

I’m not sure they know how it affects our neighborhoods.

David:

Rather. It's two different, two different entities, two different sets of docs, and and we applaud any effort whatsoever that you guys have, and would exercise to put a sub association or community association together so that you had an equal voice.

Peter:

That would be wonderful. The delegates did not allow us to do that, as you know, by voting against us in that regard and also as everyone in this room can imagine to for us to go out now and set up our own sub association takes 100% agreement on all the homeowners.

David:

And I'm aware of that.

Peter:

And no one believes that could ever possibly happen.

David:

Right, I'm aware of that. And I was also, quite frankly, as I just wrap this up with you, thank you for the discourse. But, a letter from the Master Association's attorneys today who indicated to us in that letter that there has been no votes taken. Now that's contradicted to the information that we have from our own board member and from the things that you said and some of the other information that's out there.

Peter:

I was referring to the vote that went out to the delegates to allow us to have our own delegates to become part of it. That vote was taken.

David:

Right and point in case it's two different issues. Let's keep them separated, because I think we can get a long ways if we do. Thank you. Thanks so much. Chris, I'm sorry. Go ahead.

Chris:

So I think David covered it covered it well. And I understand the concerns. And I think there is a meeting on Thursday and that's kind of the Masters Association has that meeting. It's at the library at I think it starts at 6:30. Is it here? Great.

Thanks for letting me know because I was gonna show up to the wrong place. But neither here nor is there, I would I would pretty much urge you to go to that meeting and ask the same questions that you just asked, because the their attorney is supposedly is going to outline what it's going to take for all the different things, whether it's a dissolution or a reorganization, as you guys suggested, to take care of the two, areas that does not have a sub association so.

David Faria:

Can i just ask one more clarification, it's not a speech. You just said, I just want to make sure I heard it correctly, that in the existing covenants for two neighborhoods.

David:

No cant can't hear you. You're not a part of the record. Hang on just a moment please. We have another open period that we can get you then.

David Faria:

I just want to ask you to repeat what what you said. One sentence. May I?

David:

Let Chris finish and then join us at the podium.

Chris:

Okay, so I urge you to go to that meeting. Let your voices be heard. You know, I was part of the HOA that we voted on. Allowing, from our perspective, a delay in the dissolution-ment process that, Masters Association outlined to us for the two areas to establish or a sub association and no, we pretty much yes, we voted the way you said we voted, which was to go ahead and let the dissolution process, run it's it's, pass.

So on Thursday, they're supposedly going to give us additional information. And then after that happens, additional information as to the next steps. And after that happens, then we're supposed to be able to get information on two things: how to vote and then how would we take care of the two, what are your options for taking care of your, homeowners associations or sub associations or whatever?

I think the clarification that needs to be asked at that question at that meeting, and David essentially spoke to it was what happens to the masters asso- enforcement of the Masters Association covenants? And that's valid for everybody. We all live in the community, right. And hear what they have to say. We've pretty much gone through the covenants and we what David said is what our understanding.

If the Masters Association goes away, we will pick up that a responsibility. Right. But I would like to hear from the Masters Association also on what their answer is going to be. So that's all I have. Free feel free to ask me any questions after the meeting. I am CPN too, homeowner association also. So I'm in the same boat that you from, but I'm in the position of having a sub association. Thank you.

David:

You want to join us at the podium for that quick question? And we're going to keep the meeting rolling.

Describer:

David Farria approaches the podium.

David Faria:

I just I think you just answered it. I just wanted to hear clearly. I am not interested. My question is simply this. If the Master Association goes away for any reason, I believe what I heard you say was, don't worry about it the metro district district will pick up the protection of us relative to covenants. Is that what I heard? Yes. Okay.

David:

That's correct. And if you want to, if you want to look for yourself, take a look on page 23 of the master deck, section 5.16, where clearly outlines where one can act in behalf of the other when the other isn't acting. Okay. Okay. My concerns are resolved. And and we've been and we've actually been in meetings where the Master association management company has acknowledged that provision in the deck as well.

So, you have a voice and its being heard. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much. I think that, three minutes. Not so much your fault, but my fault and I apologize to everyone. Thank you. Name and address, please?

Describer: David Faria takes his seat. Liana Palmer, a Castle Pines resident, approaches the podium.

Liana Palmer, Castle Pines Resident:

Liana Palmer. 12. Liana Palmer 12457 Topaz. Vista way. I'm not really here to talk about the dissolution of the Master Association, but just to offer to everyone here. We did have a neighborhood meeting. Everybody was invited to attend. It was fully and completely explained to us what was going on. So just to clarify that. I'm here tonight to actually find out a little bit about the water wastewater, stormwater and our charges on that. We've lived in a number of different areas in the southern part around here, we've been in Castle Rock and Highlands Ranch, Wildcat Ridge, and I am concerned about the water rates, water availability.

When I look at where we lived before in Castle Rock, and we were also in Castle Pines Village, what I find is that the water rates here, in Castle Rock, currently the first 4000 gallons is $2.82. For us the first $2,000 is $4.68. That's quite an increase. So I'm trying I know it's apples and oranges just trying to understand. Also, when I look at my property tax bill, my out of my charges, 1.9% of that is to the metro district and I realize they're doing more than water. When I look at the potential, I believe, for the homes that will be on the east side of the freeway that are Parker, that is 8.3%, I'm sorry, .83%. That's a big difference.

So excuse me, so I'm just here to learn a little bit about what the rates are, what the issues are. Thank you.

Describer: Liana takes her seat.

David:

Thank you. And when we get into the next part of the meeting, we're going to try to give you all that information that you need. Were you signed up to, are you? Come on up or please name a name and address.

Describer:

Lisa Boonenburg, a Castle Pines resident, approaches the podium.

Lisa Boonenburg, Castle Pines Resident:

Lisa Boonenburg 7915 Yorkshire Drive in Huntington Ridge just down the street. And that and that name was again? Lisa Boonenburg. Got it right here. Okay. You're a yes. I have a couple of things. The first is, I guess I'm glad to hear that should everything dissolve with the Master, we have a second choice. I have some real concerns with that because, looking at it, you're able to charge a reasonable fee. So to me, it's trading apples for oranges, if you will.

Pay the master, pay you guys. Here's my big concern with this is under the Master Association we all about our homes and, there's a backup, which is you. I don't know if you've heard this, but I've heard, you know, the city gossips, and there's all kinds of things out there. May or may not be true, but I have heard that it's possible the metro district could dissolve. Then where are we? We have lost our covenants. You know, it's not something you play with and I really am concerned on the transparency that has by yourselves and the city. So many people don't understand our situation. So that that's a big concern.

I know you want to hope. You know, you've, I hate speaking in front of public. But, you're doing a great job you know, with the work we see, the maintenance you do. I have no real concerns with the metro, other than how this whole issue has been handled. My second issue, and, you know, you don't want to go away. I'm not wishing for you to go away, but it could happen. And then we're left high and dry. The master goes away.

It's just not a comforting feeling, to be honest. Second question I have, though, is for Chris Lewis. I just I just want to ask you this, and I'll sit down and let you respond. You're on the board, and you're a delegate for your district. How is that not a conflict of interest in this issue?

Thank you.

Describer: Lisa takes her seat.

Chris:

Okay. Good question. So I am on the board here metro district board. I'm also on Castle Pines North CPN too, homeowners association, I'm a board member on that. And yes, I am a resident. So the requirements are for me to be on any of those is for me to be a resident.

So your question is more related to how am I voting to essentially not allow the two areas to not establish a sub association? Is that a conflict? And, what I'm having on both both of those areas. *inaudible speaking from attendee* Sorry. How is how is that, not a conflict because I am on both areas. And the, the metro district and city, but let's just say the metro district, we just have a resolution that says we, pretty much are in favor of reducing cost and efficiencies overall in the community that we live in.

It just happens to be that the Masters Association is one of those entities that have done an outstanding job, that I've been here for over 15 years and have done an outstanding job, and they've run their course. We have too many of all these lines of government entities that are out there. *inaudible speaking from attendee* Okay. But but I'm asking a question of, do I have a conflict of interest? So from a metro district we have, we support anything that reduce costs. Water, sewer, you know, everything. You know, we are also have a responsibility to support the community if because we have a legal responsibility to if, for instance, the fence was not enforced, we went through that whole covenants. So from that perspective.

From a homeowner's association, it just happens to me i'm in a homeowner's association that has a sub association with it, and we are asked to opine from the management association perspective on what our position is in allowing a delay in the dissolution for the two communities. So we voted. I see those things as not in conflict with each other. We're all voting in the best interests of us.

I am not going to take away your right because I'm going to support it from here. I'm also not going to take away right, because I'm going to go on Thursday and tell them, why don't they reorganize if you and as the gentleman says, you have to have 100% votes, if you desire to have your sub association, why don't they do that? Fine. Okay. *inaudible speaking from attendee*.

David:

Okay, thank you Chris. Thank you. Thank you everybody. I'm going to close the public meeting for this segment of our meeting tonight. Remember, we have another one item ten. I am going to hastily move to item number seven, the parks, trails, open space management report. Colleagues, you have all had a copy of that. Our manager cannot see at night given a personal situation with his eyes. Jim, would you want to comment.

District Manager Jim Worley:

Yeah if you don't mind, let me clarify that. Yeah. Craig Miller is our manager of Parks and Open Space. And he's usually here as, as you've seen in the past, he always does report. He has both eyes have to have cataract surgery, and he cannot see driving at night and he actually has trouble seeing driving in the daytime. So a couple months ago he said, Jim, I can't come to the meetings anymore until I get it taken care of.

He has two appointments set up for that. Once that's clear, if anybody in here has had cataract, I have not. But from what I understand, you'll be able to see a lot better than he did almost since he was born. So he'll be back attending those meetings. So he supplies information. If you have questions if I can answer them, absolutely great. If not, I'll get you the answer. Thank you.

Chris:

Questions? So, Jim, I only have one one comment. Overall, I did go over the report and it was very good. The one comment I had is, on our trail ride going northbound and the trail going up behind our building. And I don't know the exact address, but there's a blue house on that side. So that's your locator. There's a big ice dam.

Somehow we need to go look on the trail. As the water is running across, it's pretty much creating, it's like almost 20ft wide. So to walk across it, you know, it's kind of dangerous. So I'm just looking at that from the risk perspective. I don't know if we can just take a look at that, see if we can do something as soon as, maybe the spring or something comes along.

Jim:

Certainly look at it, Chris. No question about that. But what we do is we push the snow off. It's pretty hard to control how the water drains, to be honest with you. It's not. If there are some areas that are more icy than others because of shade or whatever it may be, let us know and we'll go out there and try to do what we can. But it's very difficult to to go to every spot that has a patch of ice unfortunately, thank you.

Chris:

Right. And I'm just looking at it from a perspective of second ice for you. I know you guys or we it's not you guys because I'm the district. I know we can't see all these. So we depend on on communications from the community and from us as we walk in. It's I think it's a drain issue. It's not the ice. So we'll have to figure out the drains come spring or something.

Jim:

I'll get with you and you can help me identify where we're talking about. We'll look at it. Thank you.

Describer:

District Legal Counsel Kim Seter approaches the podium.

District Legal Counsel Kim Seter:

Yes, Mr. Chairman, there's actually five items of business. One of them didn't quite make it on the agenda, but it was on for the January meeting. And that's the annual administrative resolution that was in your packet.

Every year at the first meeting, we have to reconsider certain things, like your posting place the newspaper for publication and a number of other items. So we have folded into that resolution your delegation of all of the work of the district to the accountants, the attorneys, the employees, to Mr. Worley, and then included those statutory requirements as well. This particular resolution changes nothing from the way you operated last year. If you want to change it, then we'll have to change the resolution. But if you want to approve it, it'll be the same operation as last year.

David:

Can we? I'd like to hold off on a motion on that until we've heard all five. I still only have four but continue, please.

Kim:

Okay. Then item A is considered Chatfield management agreement amendment. There was an amendment proposed to the management agreement to add, what's it called, Jim? Dominion water as a member. So they'll be contributing to the costs and be part of the organization. There's really no reason not to execute that and, or ratify the execution of it. Item B, ratification of the Rose Rock oil and gas easement.

That was an oil and gas easement that was purchased from you for $222,000.40, $222,048.75 to run an oil and gas line across one of the farms under which you have water. The third the fourth item is considered notice of director elections. You don't really need to vote on that one, but director Crew, Lowen and Lewis's seats are up in May. We went ahead and gave the notice of the election and just want you to ratify that and publicly announce that that's happening.

And then the final item is ratification of the transparency notice, which is a notice that is recorded with the division of local governments every year. A copy of that is attached to the report and your ratification just assures us that you agree with what was in that report. It's pretty standard information. And that's it Mr. Chairman.

David:

Council, thank you for that report. Colleagues, I'd like to make a motion this evening to consider the changes and the adoption changes to date and the adoption of the resolution. Which will be numbered upon, the motion passing of the annual administrative resolution. Also, motion to move the board, ratify the content of the transparency notice of 2020 filed with the state of Colorado.

Third, the approval, approval and recommendation of the rates for calendar year 2020. And lastly, make a motion, that the board ratify the execution of the Second amendment of the Chatfield Management Agreement to add Dominion Water as a party. Questions?

Kim:

Mr. Chairman, you included in there a motion on the rates. I did. That should have been ratification of the Rose Rock easement. Right.

Jim:

The rates will come later.

David:

How many times am I going to do this before?

Kim:

We'll just substitute the instead of the rates ratification of the Rose Rock oil and gas easement. And then the motion's fine.

David:

I mean, I have a quorum. Let me go. So that being said, I would I would, replace, the, rates and, calendar for the, the rates for calendar year 2020 with the, how about the the directors elections? Okay?

Board Voting All Speak:

Comments, questions, concerns of the that motion pertaining to those four items? Colleagues? I second it. Hearing none other. We have a motion on the floor. We have a second by Director Lewis. All those in favor, please indicate by saying I when called upon or nay, if that be your decision Director Lowen. I. Director Merritt. I. Director Crew. I. And Director Lewis. I. Director McEntire is an I as well. Motion carries unanimously. We will address then after the presentation of the rate and fees a motion, if that is the pleasure of the board. Thank you. Council.

David:

Well, what do you know, Eric. Eric is with Bartles and Wells. He has been the gentleman that's been, working alongside, pinnacle, and staff along with the board, since, probably mid, mid well, since summer, late summer of last year and has prepared a rate and fee, presentation for the board and for those that are in attendance and those online. Eric, you have the floor. Welcome.

Describer:

Erik Helgeson approaches the podium.

Erik Helgeson, Bartle Wells Associates:

Thank you, Director McEntire. Good evening everyone. As I said, my name is Erik Helgeson. I'm with Bartle Wells Associates, and we're a municipal financial consultancy. It was, I have to say, it was great to see some snow. I moved out to California four years ago, so it was kind of novel, but then I went outside and realized I've gotten pretty soft. But I'm sure you don't feel bad for me. It's a little chilly. But today I'm going to talk about the waters, which stormwater and wastewater rates.

We did an update to the Cost Service study. And I'll go into why we're recommending the increase we are for each enterprise. I'm going to start with the water enterprise. And the, the first driver is and the main driver is the debt associated with the storage projects and primarily making sure the operating revenues meet the minimum debt service coverage requirements. And what that means is that there's enough revenue when you subtract out the expenses to cover the debt service payment you make every year, or a multiple of that. In this case, it's a bare minimum of 1.1 times the debt service, annual debt service payment.

So the revenues have to hit that target to be in compliance with the covenant of the of the bond. We also assumed that, we also assume there's going to be inflation in our model. We're assuming 3%, roughly some years it's a little higher in the past few years. Some years it's been a little lower. But we want to just make sure that we're prepared for the inevitable increase of costs that happen on an annual basis. And finally, the the other driver, not so much driving the rates, but driving why we're keeping some of the rates constant is that, the the consolidation study, and then also the asset management program that you guys are looking at, is going to inform the the capital fee and the renewal and renewable replacement fee. So we are holding those two constant for the time being.

This graph shows the, the cash flow for the water fund. And you can see the first the first year, 2018-2019. It has not changed too much. And that shows that the board has been doing a good job of keeping costs down and costs they've been holding, expenses fairly constant. Hoping this might take a little bit of thunder out of Eric's next presentation when he talks about the budget, but, that's a good thing. But as you can see, we do assume that operating expenses will eventually start to increase on a regular basis with inflation. The other thing I want to mention is each column are the total expenses.

I should have said that first .The and the yellow is the debt service and the gray is the operating expenses. And we've had some lower water use in the past couple of years. And so what we're what we're doing with the rate increase is making sure we hit the debt service coverage in 2021 and then have the revenues keep pace with expenses into the future. And with that, I'll talk about the rates. The these are the fixed charges. And as I said before, only the monthly service charge is going up with the recommended rate increase.

We're holding the other two fixed charges constant. And then the the the volumetric rates are also going up as they're operating rates and they're all going up by the 4% as well. The the next couple slides are more for your reference, but just every rate has gone up by, excuse me, 3% on water. And just showing the different tiers of residential, irrigation, commercial. And then this is the these are the overall impacts to the customers. 90% of all of the customers will see a monthly increase of less than $4, but everyone will see an increase of 3%. So whatever your usage is last year, if you use the same amount this year, you pay 3% more. Onto the sewer enterprise. The financial drivers are fairly similar.

There was, there's debt service for the Plum Plum Creek Water Reclamation Authority, and then again, we we looked at the debt service coverage requirements, and we're making sure that the revenues are sufficient to meet those requirements. Again, assuming there's going to be annual inflation. And finally, we're anticipating we have a number anticipating general infrastructure projects. But once the asset management program is, in underway, those numbers will be much more clear what the board needs to to spend on an annual basis for maintaining their assets. This is the financial plan for the wastewater enterprise.

The, the revenues are we're hitting the 1.15, with the 4% increase in 2020. And then after that, we're keeping with inflation until, the, and then there'll be more clarity once the asset management program is, is in place. But we want to make sure the rates are keeping up with inflation. And you can see the green the the dark green line, which is the revenues from operating is just staying right with the expenses. The other thing I want to show you on the, on the sewer side is that connection fees have been coming in at a pretty, accelerated pace. And so the reserves from those connection fees are going up so that the board will be well-positioned to use those finances for capital projects in the future.

I believe that Eric said there was over 100 connections last year. So it's they're coming in on a nice, nice clip. So the sewer, and just to recap, we're recommending a 4% increase in the first year to keep up with, to make sure we hit the 1.1 debt service coverage and then 3% thereafter. So the fixed sewer charge going up 4% from $13.31 to $13.85. And then the usage charge is going from $6.46 to $6.72. Overall, the you're in your fixed bill is going to go up by $0.54. And then depending on what your average winter consumption is for every unit of water use in the winter, your average use, which is how your sewer, the variable portion of your sewer charges based, that will go up by $0.26 for every, unit of usage that you have during that period when your bill is set.

Be looked at, the storm drain revenues and the revenues are still sufficient to cover operation so we're recommending that the storm drain charge remain the same. And overall, the combined impacts to customers are going to be less than $8 a month for 95% of residential bills. And they're going to increase by about about $3.76 for the average customer.

And and that's taking into account the, the 3% increase on the water, operating charges, the capital charges staying the same, and then the sewer charges going up by 4% next year. And with that, that concludes my presentation, if the board has any questions for me.

David:

I don't have any questions for you, Eric. It should not be, to anyone's surprise the increased debt for the Chatfield expansion and reallocation project, that this board inherited within months of it taking office. As well as the Plum Creek Sanitation and and, expansion, the 3 million gallons per day addition in capacity there, all of which, by the way, this board has, embraced and is fully on board with and will do this district, a, a service, to say the least. Those assets have appreciated, from the day that we signed them, and, and, that the residents empowered us to do so and, and, and, so and given Jim's report on those projects over the last year have all been satisfactory. And in fact, in some cases, like the Chatfield Reservoir under budget, the Plum Creek Sanitation District ahead of schedule.

So, those were those were good assets to add to our books. I've already appreciated and are well worth the debt service that you had to contemplate covering for us, but that that that little hump is what that's all about. And it will serve us well. Colleagues? Eric, thank you for that. We appreciate that. I'm going to ask you to hang around, if you would please. And, and, in the event that to at least through, item ten. Okay. May need your honor about that. I'm going to go ahead and open up the public hearing, on the proposed cost to service rate fee increase and, and the, consideration of implementing same. I again have a sign up sheet.

I don't have anyone that indicated a yes that has not spoken already. I have a couple maybes that remain. We've had some real rebels in the audience that have come up otherwise. But as much as you've given us your name and your address, you're always welcome. Two more. Right, ma'am? Come on up. *inaudible speaking from attendee* You you can you can speak in the open hearing section, both, if you like. Absolutely. *inaudible speaking from attendees* Oh. Were you going to keep on topic? Or not? *inaudible speaking from attendee* The water? Thank you for yeah thank you for that.

Help us keep focus. Come on up, ma'am. Turn the mic on. If council hasn't already helped you. Name and address for the record and fire away. Thanks.

Describer:

Lorie Goldie, a Castle Pines resident, approaches the podium.

Lorie Goldie, Castle Pines Resident:

So my name is Lorie Goldie. I live at 7737 Yorkshire Drive. I've been a resident here for over 20 years. My question is about your rate increases. Why does why do the residents pay more? This is kind of alluding to the lady who came up earlier. Why did the residents pay more per gallon than the commercial customers in our neighborhood? *inaudible speaking from David*

So if you look at slides, slide seven and slide nine shows that residential customers pay more per gallon for water than commercial customers do. Why is that?. And could you turn that around and increase the commercial customers rate versus increasing the residential customers rates and achieve the same purpose? Eric? Yeah so. And I that's all I had. So can I sit down?

Describer: Lorie takes her seat.

Erik:

Yes. So in the last cost of service study was done, there are a couple factors that were taken into account. One is the usage characteristics of each class, how much the class uses as a whole on as far as peak usage, which costs more to serve. And then the other factor that's taken into account is just how much each class uses.

So when the cost of service determines the rates, you are looking at that and I assume that the commercial users use actually probably more water in the higher tiers. And so that's they're effectively paying more than residential. And then also residential customers tend to peak in the summer. So they're drawing some of those peak costs to the class.

When things are more sorted with consolidation study, I would recommend doing another full cost of service study analyzing the classes. But because that's still being examined, we recommended just doing, a update this year of the current rates.

David:

I'm not sure that that answered your question. And while that is a rate structure, that's part of the published menu, if you will, that this board inherited and has been exercising, ever since, These consultants are all going to share their philosophy with you and, and, none of them are wrong. But as he said, they're not quite right either. And so as we look at the differences between the commercial and the residential customers, it it is something we do on an annual basis. If the issue gives rise to making those adjustments, we would take those into account.

But until which time? Something more substantive, as he mentioned, possible outcome of a of a of a dissolution of the district from a water and sewer perspective, it probably is going to remain the same based on some old compilations that were done.

Describer:

Lorie approaches the podium again.

Lorie:

I guess I would just ask that the board considers relooking at that versus making this five year projection of what we're going to raise rates for the next five years at this rate. Do a new survey and figure out if there's a better way to do it after this year.

Describer: Lorie takes her seat again.

David:

Yes, ma'am. Promise.

Robert:

And if I could add in there and could you expound on the water that goes to the golf course, is that commercial as well? Because it's a lower grade? Is that considered or looked at as well?

Erik:

That. What the usage? I believe that's on a has, they have a separate rate because I think they receive untreated water. Yeah. *inaudible speaking* Yeah. I think there's there's separate classes. You have a treated commercial and untreated commercial, which is the golf course.

Robert:

And I like the idea. We're going to look at it. Thank you.

David:

Yeah Eric, if you'll make note of that request, make sure that as a part of the study next year, we speak specifically to that issue in your presentation. To ensure these folks that that didn't slip through the cracks, please. Absolutely I will. Thank you. We're in the open hearing section, or the public hearing section of the meeting.

The last one, item ten. We have one other lady that has her hand up. They don't all look like ladies, but there was one a few minutes ago. Ma'am. Come on up. Try to keep it to three minutes and I'll do the same.

Describer: Cynthia Thomas, a Castle Pines resident, approaches the podium.

Cynthia Thomas, Castle Pines Resident:

Well your three minutes aren’t in aren’t in my three minutes, are they? No. Well. They shouldn't be. Okay. You're you're that's a deal. My name is Cynthia Thomas. I live at 7981 Yorkshire Drive. And as you guys know, I can write letters. Not as good as speaking at speaking. I want to address the board about a few things that you've said tonight. Specifically, in reference to some of your statements Director McEntire. You know, if the Master goes away, that means and is dissolved that means that the declarations go away. How how is that? Well. Because we signed on when we bought our homes.

David:

Okay yeah. It's not a Q and A, and I promised everybody just now that we weren't going to go there. But again, I want to remind you that I am available to you. My schedule's flexible, and I want to make it convenient to you, so feel free to contact me. Get with you most any time, anywhere. Okay?

Cynthia:

Okay. Well, I, I thought that we would be able to you said Chris Lewis said we could ask you guys questions and I just was asking in reference to a statement that you had made. So I will move on, but I will follow up after this weekend. Let's see. I just want to emphasize here that the communications you've put out, specifically the one dated February 7th, that I assume you're going to be voting on here soon. Your language is very strong in support of dissolution. It certainly does not imply what you have said here tonight that you are willing to listen to anything. I mean, there's no implication of that whatsoever.

It's dissolution or nothing. And that is what you have all put into this resolution. I wanted to just point that out because that's different from what you have said tonight. The other you know, it's very contradictory. The other thing that I wanted to clarify is that this is really your opinion because you do not have any legal recourse in this situation. You are it is your opinion that this should happen. Correct? Okay. Lastly, I would like to ask Mr. Lewis something. Who said we could ask him questions? I really you did not answer Lisa's question regarding conflict. I guess I want to understand if you have backed the recent, February 7th working draft, which you're voting on tonight, strongly as a director.

How can you fairly explain the whole situation to your homeowners, which is your fiduciary responsibility. They elected you to bring all the information to them in a fair manner. And I kind of feel like, well, I do feel like you're being on the board and supporting this resolution is the opposite of being open and fair. So I'm going to suggest that you should probably recuse yourself as a delegate to the master. And that's all I want to say. Thank you.

Describer: Cynthia takes her seat.

Chris:

Yeah. I think I've answered the question and what my response are, were is what my response is. So if you have any additional comments or questions, free, you can ask me after the meeting too. But those were my comments.

David:

Thank you. Ma'am?

Describer:

Nancy Downs, a Castle Pines resident, approaches the podium.

Nancy Downs, Castle Pines Resident:

I said maybe so. And this is about the increase in prices for our bills. Okay. Name and address please? Nancy Downs. 283 Huntley Court. I would like to know why I'm still being charged a renewable water fee every month on my bill. When you all ran for your positions as directors opposing renewable water, which was something that was a big platform on the former board.

And I'd like to know what that money goes towards every month.

And if we could perhaps look at that $15 a month I spend every month, that goes to what and how we could maybe take that general ledger account and use that instead of raising my bill every month. Because I don't know why I'm paying $15 a month for a renewable water fee when I see nothing and you're, you know, website that says we're doing anything that is renewable water.

Describer: Nancy takes her seat.

David:

Thank you, for that. And let me just encourage you to, follow us, from the website or on the website, specifically as it relates to, the, the, issue of the mutual study that has been underway for now about a year and is and, where progress is being reported on, every month and including again this month, you'll hear some additional, updates. But that is currently the most public, renewable water. Program that we have underway. Renewable water or not, was never our platform. Our platform was we were convinced that until third party agreements or neighboring partnerships that could generate mutual and advantageous economies and efficiencies were, investigated that we weren't satisfied with what was being presented at that time. Which was a $103 million ask for 50% of the renewable water that this community was, was led to believe, which was absolutely necessary at the time.

So, with that in mind, again, over the course of the last year and, in the foreseeable future, we continue to pursue the answers to those questions. Can more than 50% of the renewable water that this community endeavors to have, much like every single other community on the Front Range and in the state of Colorado and other states, can it be obtained for less than $103 million? And if so, how much? So follow us there.

Feel free to communicate with us freely as individuals, or at these meetings, and we'll keep you posted. The $15 fee is an investment. You'll notice that it's no longer characterized as as as a rate or a fee, but rather it's an investment into a fund that can only be used for obtaining these renewable waters if and when it makes sense for the residents. While this board did freeze that, it was programmed to escalate on an annual basis. But until which time we believe that there was a venue that would support an escalation. We chose to freeze it. Any anybody else want to speak to that? I hope that answers your question. Sir come on up.

Describer:

David Faria approaches the podium.

David Faria:

David Faria again. Do you know what a Swiss Army knife is? You know what it does? It has a lot of things. And it's got a knife. It's got a screwdriver, it's got a Phillips head. It's got a bottle opener. Got it. It does a lot of things, but it doesn't do one thing really well. Okay. Now, you said that if the Masters association association goes away, you people would take over it, right?

David:

No, sir, I didn't say that. The declaration said says that.

David Faria:

Okay. The declaration says the metro takes over. Correct? Yes. Okay. By name. Okay. Now you have to understand the HOA and the other families around here, the other neighborhood has their own HOA. What their job is, is to protect the covenants. That's their main job. And they do probably do a very good job of that.

Okay. Now, if we if our association goes away and you take over it, well, you know, your main job is water, water and sewer. If I call you up and says, hey, I need.

David:

Can I, I apologize, but I'm going to stop you right there and remind you that HOA’s, by definition are self help organizations. Okay. Now, the Master Association had two jobs when it came to their oversight. It was to ensure the sub associations did as you were suggesting they do, take care of everybody as well as enforce the design guidelines, as it relates to architectural control requests. Right. Neither two of those things are going to go unaddressed.

Okay. And the ability of, of of this entity is not a question. It is it is, if I may, what the law says. And while I agree with you, it's not always about law it's about benefit. And that's been the perspective of this board. What is the greater benefit over over the law? But in this case we have both benefit an entity that is willing to act when one is not, as it is, was contemplated, and as it is written following the directions it is acted. And we'll continue to do that, being placed in a position where it is forced to. And in this situation we have an opinion we don't have a vote is has been brought up. It's simply an opinion.

And we strongly believe that the economy's in the efficiencies coupled with the reckless use of the funds from the residents here, gives rise for us to take a stand as our counterparts in the city has done and and, and, and, support dissolution of the Master Association.

David Faria:

Okay. I understand what you're saying, and I have no argument about that. I understand what you're saying, but my problem is, is that if you people, the Metro takes over and tries to enforce the covenants, I'm saying that because you people have bigger fish to fry I think that the the the problem my neighbor because he painted the house pink I think the priority is going to be weighed down.

Now versus well, I think that in the long term for the security for ourselves and our, and people in Huntington Ridge and Claremont, the long term solution is to have a separate HOA that we can come to that can enforce it. Those it's its once again, is the HOA in all of the other neighborhoods that's all their main job is.

Your main job is not to enforce to somebody, painted the house pink. That's what I'm saying. So the long term solution is that we need to have our own HOA.

David:

And we support you in that regard.

Robert:

If I could just follow that up. We do have the structure if you do need it, but I would encourage everybody that's watching online everybody here, from the Huntington Ridge in Claremont to attend that meeting. And we'll be able to support it because we have been able to do things definitively that other associations don't. We have the staff and we have the capabilities and the attorneys so.

David Faria:

Okay, so if somebody buys a house in our neighborhood, they would come to you? You would charge a fee? Do we pay a fee to each, each year to the Metro District?

Robert:

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Let's everybody go to the meeting, and then, we can work this out. Thank you so much for coming and bringing it to the public. And, we can work together on it. Okay.

Describer:

David Faria takes his seat.

Denise:

Can I make a comment, please? I just want to state I hear I hear what you're saying from, I know it's H.R. and CE sorry, I got. I get the names wrong. We were always learning on this board. There's a lot of things that I certainly did not know going into this, that you learn as you go along. I want to just assure that your concerns. We hear you, and we're not out to make life miserable or leave a neighborhood high and dry or anything like that. But we do agree with what our platform was to help, reduce government and that's what we're about.

We're doing what people have asked us to do. Since this resolution came out in the mail, we have been inundated with emails and far greater than 90% of those emails are definitely for dissolution of the Master Association for for for for. There were a few that are were against, and I totally get it if I lived in your neighborhood, I would feel the same way.

So please just know that we hear you we listen to you. We're not here to make life miserable. That's not what we're trying to do. Can we talk or? Oh, I'll leave it up to you if you want comments.

David:

Two more and that's it for this evening, I, or one, is it 1 or 2? One more. One. One more for this evening. Thanks so much.

Describe:

Gary Jesnen, a Castle Pines resident, approaches the podium.

Gary Jensen, Castle Pines Resident:

Gary Jensen, Yorkshire Drive. I would I want to throw something out just based on personal experience. My wife and I moved here about three years ago from a, which was supposedly an upscale golf course community in California. We had an HOA covenants in place, and one of the neighbors wanted to do something, and the HOA said, no, you can't do that. So he got mad and somehow managed to agitate the other neighbors in the area.

Got him to eliminate the HOA along with it went the covenants and it was only a matter of weeks till things started falling apart. And the thing you need to keep in mind is, even though we may not have covenants and we're not protected, it's going to affect you directly. Because in one case, a guy moved a mobile home onto his property within weeks after the HOA dissolving. So now the place look like a trailer park.

Another guy who used to collect junk moved seven broken down cars onto his front yard and 14 broken down rusted motorcycles. And the problem for that is those are all over the property. The place looks like a junkyard and it was all visible from the protected areas. So you're going to hurt your own property values if we don't have covenants to protect us. So just food for thought. Be careful what you wish for.

David:

Sure appreciate that. And and again, whether it is is, the metro district or inevitably the, the, the city, we hear you, we're wiser for it. Appreciate the, the, information and, the participation, encourage you all to, at a neighborhood level, work together and, and and and put together an organization that has a voice and and and your voice coming from one entity, as opposed to the anxiety that ensues when everybody is standing on their own.

I think a sub association. Just my saying so would be very beneficial. Albeit it might require a 100%, buy in. You have to understand how we feel up here when when we've got some for and some against, just like you are some for and some against so what do you do right? We we we support, a resolution to dissolve the Master Association for the reasons that we outlined in it. And, we stand ready to take their place, until, as I said, inevitably, it may be the city's place. Or you were added in, as is, a sub association, because you're concerned about there not being a sub association and not having representation.

All of the sub associations could feel the same way because the Master Association was this umbrella over the, the sub associations. And again they had two jobs. Make sure those sub associations enforce their covenants and make sure that in an architectural control scenario, they not only enforce their covenants, but that they enforce the 1980 adopted 1984-85 design guidelines that we all live under. Those covenants, those declarations, as I've said, I've called them decks they're the declarations of covenants con conditions and restrictions as they were adopted or on title. Everyone has the same one.

No one's losing them. It's just a matter of representation. We hear you, temporarily or otherwise we're here for you if the Master Association dissolves. If it does not, it still gives rise in that section 5.16 as we exercised on the parkway fence, that where the Master Association was not willing to act as it is, decreed, the metropolitan district can, and so far it will. In this situation, we do implore the Master Association to dissolve. It's as simple as that. I don't know what's taken so long. It's a very simple process to organize and have a sub association.

Equally, we're in support of that and will help in any way we possibly can. Thank you again tonight, everybody, for your comments. And, and, I am going to move that the public hearing, close at this point and move to my colleagues for a motion, to, as it relates to the rates and fees, study that we was just given presentation on.

Board Voting All Speak:

I'd like to make a motion to approve the recommended rates for the calendar year 2020. I'll second. We have a motion on the floor, by director, and a second by Director Merritt and, Director Crew, to approve the rates and fees as presented tonight and as, we have heard the comments concerns some questions from the audience.

Are there any other from my colleagues? Hearing nothing more I'll ask for a vote on the motion. When called upon, please indicate by saying, yes or no if that's your pleasure. Director Crew. Yes. Director. Lewis. Yes. Director Lowen. Yes. Director. Merritt. Yes. Director McEntire is a yes. The motion passes unanimously. Thank you very much.

David:

Moving to item number 11, is a report by our finance director, Eric, welcome. Sorry to take up some of your time. You get the message. Hurry.

Describer:

Financial Director Eric Harris approaches the podium.

Financial Director Eric Harris:

Yes, sir. Thank you. Good evening board. Once again my name is Eric Harris, I'm with Pinnacle Consulting Group. In front of you, you have the unaudited December 31st, 2019 financial statements available for you. I just want to hit some quick highlights that were also in my memo for you tonight. Property tax revenue collected through the district was 99.11% last year, primarily attributable to an abatement that was processed. And so and that amounted to approximately 30, $30,400. Overall, you have two sets of financial statements. You have your general fund and you have your enterprise funds.

Your general fund is funded by property taxes and that is a 19 mills that is associated with the property tax bill. Your enterprise funds, which is your water, wastewater and storm drainage, is associated with charges for services that, that you have set and approved tonight. Overall, your general fund variances trended under budget by approximately $440,000. Lower professional services, lower R&M related to grounds maintenance expenditures for the 2019 calendar year. Your enterprise funds for December 2019, were significantly under budget, but that was primarily due to capital projects that the board did budget for that have since determined that were not necessary for this for the 2019 year and then therefore, we moved out of the 2020 budget for the subsequent year.

Very high overview the, that Eric alluded to earlier, Eric, with Bartle Wells for the 2019 calendar year, the district process there around 188 connection fees associated with impact fees for water and 182 connection fees in the wastewater fund. Collectively, those impact fees are approximately $50,000 associated with water, wastewater, to provide those services and provide, for those residents primarily to the Legae development, of course, to the south. So those, are go to our fund balance to fund future capital expanses and features, provide future services for that for those residents. In addition to that, and the other, variance in the wastewater enterprise Fund was approximately $3 million, but that was due to the timing of the PCWRA expansion project that closed in December 31st of 2018.

That was entirely funded by the debt service, that was debt issuance that was discussed earlier. Overall very good year. There's many projects, business continues as usual. We have our audit coming up but I will certainly entertain any questions that you may have tonight.

David:

I just want to make a comment and one question. The comment, along with that, approximately $50,000 downstroke by our development community on each and every tab is a significant, includes a significant increase over the course of the last 12 months, related to a renewable investment as well. We now are running par with our neighbors at approximately 15 to $17,000 per resident that they contribute at permitting or, for our renewable water investments.

That being said, just to make that clarification and remind everybody of the of the investment that they're all making as well. You had indicated earlier this month that there was a, another foundation out there in, in, our friendly little city and I didn't quite understand your your relationship or the or the district's relationship with the CPN Foundation.

Eric:

That is correct. I am unfamiliar with the CPN Foundation as it stands today.

David:

It's my understanding that this foundation is alive and well, has about 15 grand in it, uses our address for, its resident or yeah, residency. Would you along with, with, Jim and council, pursue some answers in that regard? It may be, another one of those layers, that, should this board sink their teeth into, could, improve the economies in efficiencies for the residents as well as, the ease of of, whatever they're doing.

I have no idea. But, that was a good find and we'll come up with something. Let's be prepared to report on that next. Certainly. Next month, please. Colleagues, questions for Eric?

Eric:

The final note on page 21, you'll see the district's cash position report as of February 12th, 2020. What you will see is significant increases in the enterprise Fund. It's primarily driven by impact fees associated with that, with the enterprise cash balance at $35.5 million associated with the future capital that the district will have to maintain and in the future associated with that development and its existing future, existing capital as well.

David:

Thank you for that explanation. It's a big number. Yes, it is a very large number. It's a big project. It is a big project. And it's a handsome asset as I tried to characterize, for everybody attending in those that are online.

Hearing no other comments, questions or concerns from my colleagues. Eric, thank you for that report. I would entertain a motion or if my colleagues would, would put up with me, I'd make the motion.

Denise:

I just have one quick question. Go ahead. The enterprise funds, when we approve and ratify, why is that number so hugely different? Did I miss something? Yes, you just missed. I thought so, I'm sorry. Go ahead Eric. Tell me again I'm sorry. That's the last thing he said.

Eric:

I'm sorry are we in the in the claims for payment that we're ratifying? And which number is that that you would? A million 5. $81,000. More specifically, this is ratifying the claim since November and since we didn't have a board meeting December and January, it's all that business that was associated with those claims for payment. And I can certainly go through that in detail with you of course yes. Thank you.

David:

Oh, then then I need to apologize. I misunderstood what you said. That was not I understood that to be some of our capital outlays for our recent capital projects. Did those occur during that period of time, or is this just an accumulation of those three periods?

Eric:

This is accumulation of those three periods.

David:

Okay then I did misunderstand and I apologize. It's just an accumulation. So with that, I'd like to make a motion to approve the 2019 year in financial statements, reported tonight by the finance director. Also ratify the November 2019, the December 2019 and January 2020 payables, approving February payables. Check numbers 24788 through 25020. Specifically approve from the General Fund and debt service $75,424.52 and ratify, a cumulative amount of $393,556.54, for a total of $468,991.06 from the Enterprise Fund.

Approve $81,703.29. Ratifying accumulated amount of a $1,541,991.07 for a total of $1,623,694.36 and ratify electronic payments. All funds, of a $1,387,899.21 for the same total for total expenditures of $3,480,584.63. Reminding everybody that that's three months and not one. Do I have a second?

Eric:

If I may? Director McEntire. This also includes the district's debt service payments that occurred in 12, on 12/1 as well. So in addition to the one five that was enterprise fund the reason why we have this is you additionally had, approximately 830 something thousand dollar payment associated with the district's 2015 COP’s within that.

Board Voting All Speak:

Copy that. We're now all three of us on the same page. All right, is there a second? I'll second. We have a motion on the floor to consider the approval, as itemized under item 11 and presented, by our finance director. We have a second by Denise or by Director Crew. Any comments, questions or concerns?

Hearing none ask for a vote on the motion. Please signify by a yes if you approve a nay if you do not when called upon. Director Lewis. Yes. Director Lowen. Yes. Director Merritt. Yes. Director Crew. Yes. And Director McEntire is a yes. That report and those motions carry unanimously. Thank you very much, Eric. Thank you very much.

Describer: Eric takes his seat and District Manager Jim Worley approaches the podium.

David:

Item number 12, District Manager's report. Jim, you have the floor, sir.

Jim:

Thank you. Good evening. I want to I'll make a comment here in a minute, but I want to point out on my report on the back page where it says shared effluent pond six A, that's been going on for a long time and the ball has been in their court to contact me and say, here's what we want to do.

So I added a sentence at the end of that particular item that says it's going to come off my report unless I get some some comments from them and the ball's in their court. So I like to let you know when I take something off of here. So you go where that go.

Robert:

You mean they as in the village?

Jim:

Yeah well, yes, it's a country club at Castle Pines, that entity. So unless I get a call from them between now and your next board meeting, that won't be on there next month. I'd like to make a statement if I could. The Water and wastewater service integration study on which the Castle Pines North Metro District and Parker Water and Sanitation District jointly embarked a year ago, is nearing completion.

Steve Hellman, the chief financial officer at Parker Water and San, and I anticipate briefing you on our analysis, preliminary findings, underlying rationale and recommended next steps during your regular schedule board meeting on Monday, March 16th, 2020. We anticipate reviewing multiple alternatives and possible financing scenarios with you in executive session at that time.

Directors, I'm aware that the previous administrations tended to overuse executive sessions. In the interest of transparency I understand your strong preference to avoid them recognizing that the board can make no decisions while in executive session and is legally required to take formal action in public. Given the highly sensitive nature of your negotiations with Parker Water and Sanitation District, I respectfully ask that our initial briefing occur in executive session with the understanding that we will engage our public shortly thereafter. That's my comment for you. Please.

Chris

Are you asking us if we want to go into executive session, for this or what's the ask here?

Jim:

I ask is probably not the right word, suggest that you go into. You Bet

Chris:

Okay, suggest. So, is this part of a directive matters we're going to discuss and then pretty much give some feedback. Or we want to discuss it now?

Kim:

Mr. Chairman, that, going into executive session will be subject to a motion at the time that you go into executive session that will lay out what you're going into executive session for. You can certainly discuss whether you're willing to do that now, but there's really nothing you can do tonight. You have to wait for that motion, which it may never come. I don't know.

Robert:

I can go on record at this time, don't think we have abused the executive session at all. I personally am responsible for canceling one and took some heat for it. But, so, everyone knows where I stand on that, and I'm looking very much forward to seeing those numbers and the rest of it. Thank you.

Jim:

I'll also add to this that the meeting that we're talking about now is March 16th. I have been asked to be a part of the meeting that happened that will happen on March 12th at the Parker Water and Sanitation district. They will also go into an executive session and have discussions. Steve and I'll make a little presentation to them and then they'll kick me out and they'll discuss stuff.

So that's how I see it happening for this organization on March 16th. Steve will be here, maybe even Ron Ray, the manager, but at least Steve and I will be here. We'll go into executive session assuming the proper motion is made. We'll talk about stuff and then Steve will leave, and then we'll be able to freely discuss it within there without decisions of course, you can't make motions, but had the opportunity to talk about it.

Chuck:

I'd like to get into our executive session real quickly and just chat with all of the board members to find out their opinions, but more importantly, Jim, I'd like you to be involved so that you can share with us certain subjects that are sensitive to this negotiation. Right now I'm on the fence, but I'd like to hear more.

Jim:

You're referring to the March 16th board meeting to go in executive. Yes sir. Absolutely perfect. Yes sir. Thank you. We'll also have that as an agenda item. We'll we'll specify as an executive session, specify the statute that you can go into an executive session and led by the attorney someone will make the motion assuming you want to go into executive session.

David:

We'll certainly get back to you no later than the end of this month first part of next one we're working on our March agenda. Please continue.

Jim:

We will do it, thank you. With your report. That's all I have on my report.

David:

Very good. Let me ask you, was there anything new on the Kennedy Jenks front that you wanted to share with us or all is, in order? I didn't I didn't see anything.

Jim:

Oh, there is a Kennedy Jenks report in there, but, yeah everything.

David:

Right is there anything more you wanted to add.

Jim:

No, no, thank you, appreciate that.

David:

Very good. Thank you Jim. All right. Thank you. I'm going to close, district manager's report, item number 12 and, open up item or address item 13, Directors Matters. There in we have at least three items that we want to bring up. Let me bring up item A first, which is just a friendly reminder of, the unanimous approval of resolution number 2019-01 and the associated timeline for CPNMD’s one time only painting of the fence that lies in a periodic state of disrepair on the south side of Castle Pines Parkway between Shoreham Drive and Yorkshire Drive. Folks, those online and those attending here, know that that resolution, contemplates a resolve, no pun intended, but a resolve to the matter of that fence and the, disrepair, periodic state of disrepair that, has been, a thorn in our sides, longer than we've been directors but as long as we have been directors.

Having passed that resolution, we did offer a one time repainting to ensure the continuity, visual continuity of of, of that fence. We embraced and worked with all of the property owners that are adjacent to that fence. We have subsequently provided a means, by virtue of the of an easement for them to make their repairs are keeping them abreast of of our timeline associated with, with the repainting, which is, subject to, the weather. And anticipate, as is, spring presents itself someday soon, well, complete our commitment to those owners and to this community with that painting. We I, we in the interim or thereafter, we received some correspondence from HOA one, and their legal counsel again bullying this district into believing that they have no responsibility, that we have 100% responsibility and that they disagreed with what we resolved. They provided a litany of backup, which doesn't hold water, not even close.

Council has reviewed their correspondence this board has reviewed the correspondence and, we remain steadfast in our resolve of resolution 2019-01, as I previously stated. No further action at this point. Comments, questions, concerns of my colleagues on that on item? Hearing none. Item B, which is the consider consideration of the working draft resolution that has been a hot topic for tonight. This resolution is is, in reference to the proposed dissolution of the Master Association and the equitable distribution of hundreds of thousands of dollars in excess revenues in or revenues to the Castle Pines property owners west of I-25. We have been very specific in the foundation that is, a part of that draft resolution.

We have simplified the resolution to specifically read as follows. Item one quickly and efficiently dissolve the Master Association and equitably distribute the Castle Pines North Metro District property owners the hundreds of thousands of dollars in excess revenue that the Master Association has collected over the years for Castle Pines property owners. And number two, retain the services of a professional election firm, a designated election official, or the Douglas County Clerk and recorder to responsibly and transparently manage the every facet of the Master Association pending dissolution election and associated voting.

Folks we received today a letter from yet another letter from Council of the Master Association and there's no one that believes that that comes for nothing. It's costing everyone more money to drag this out. I said it earlier. I am not aware of one reason that it should be taking as long as it has. The Master Association was was confronted with the possibilities of this over a year ago, corresponded with their with the residents that they were considering it, had been moving forward in that regard, and now we get another letter from council, from their council.

It is it is my opinion that that letter holds nothing legally that we're responsible for, responding to, and, and I'll leave it at that, for comments, questions, concerns from my colleagues, anyone?

Robert:

Just want to add the part that were still still gonna you opened yourself up to questions and comments from the, the 35 home members, and I'm hoping that they can come to a resolution for that, the ones that are affected.

Chris:

I just have some additional comments too and my comments are just kind of reiterate what Denise said. We got a lot of emails. We got a lot of, hold on, we got a lot of emails, we got a lot of feedback and I just want to make one record to thank everyone for responding. You know, over 30 something pages and not individually, one per page feedback and the majority of those were in favor of our resolution so thank you for responding.

We cannot do what we do up here without the feedback of the community. So make sure you make your voices heard and communicate to us. Thank you.

David:

The 35 pages of of is is a byproduct of a communications report from our communications consultant, that is given to the board on, on a monthly basis. And, and, Chris is right. He was inundated, overwhelmed by the input from our neighbors in it. And it wasn't 90% that were embracing the resolution but imploring us to act swiftly on that resolution. And it was in excess of 90%. I don't know that we had one dissenting person, as much as maybe 2 or 3 of them had some comments and questions and concerns, much like our residents, here this evening.

But, we look forward to we're hoping that this is productive and proactive. That's our intent there. That it's economical, it's efficient, and that the recklessness, the financial recklessness stops. Are there any other comments before considering ratification of this rental resolution?

Chuck:

Having managed homeowners associations for the good part of 50 years and over 3000 units in Colorado, I certainly appreciate the majority and I appreciate the minority. And I think it's important that not only do we look for a solution that benefits the majority, but I think it would be helpful if there was something we could do or encourage the Master association to do before they dissolve to give Claremont a stage and Huntington Ridge some options. I'd like to find a solution.

When I have a problem, I, I don't want to just leave it hanging. And so if there's something I can do to help the associations come up with a solution that protects their covenants and conditions and restrictions in their by laws then then I think since we've stepped in it as we have, and I support it, we should come up with a helpful, some kind of helpful answer.

And, it might be that I talk to my own council to come up with that, but, and they should talk to their own council. Well, you can always hire counsel. But but there should be a solution. And so, that's that's how I feel about this process. But I certainly agree with where the, this board, is, is headed and has agreed to. So I support that.

David:

Part of the problem, Director Lowen is, is that in this situation, as one of our neighbors articulated, I'll say it a little bit differently, the horse was behind the cart in this situation. We had two, two communities that were on the forefront of the commune of of the development of the city of Castle Pines North.

And and while, in reviewing every single term and condition of final plat approval, and I'm talking about me, as it related to the resolution that we contemplated and and later adopted on the fence, it became apparent to me that, the Master Association, and then the district, were somewhat catch alls for all of these sub associations. But in looking back, they forgot, that this might be a community, littered, I say that, respectfully, with with hundreds and thousands of homes in communities that have sub associations or, sub association representation.

There was no going back because each one of us, that body in the communities that we live in, other than the two that Chuck talked about, we all agreed 100% of us agreed that that was the type of community that we wanted to live in. You have the same opportunities now, but 100% same guidelines, same direction, same edict, same rules, regulations, etc. 100% apparently has to agree and approve to such representation.

Well, I don't know, Director Lowen, if there is a pathway, lawfully or beneficially, that is available to them that we could provide other than supporting in resolution form, a sub association be formed. But it's certainly much like our resolution, something that we could not impose on them. *inaudible speaking form attendee*

Describer:

Cynthia Thomas approaches the podium.

Cynthia Thomas, Castle Pines Resident:

I believe. If I could just. Cynthia Thomas 7981 Yorkshire Drive. I believe that you all saw the letter today from the attorney. I don't understand why you say it has no merit, but I believe she outlines what the plan is there. And the plan the way I read the letter was those sub associations who want to get out, they will work with them to find a way out. They will also work with us. What you're missing. Claremont Estates and Huntington Ridge.

What you're missing here and what I was going to say before, is, I believe if the Master Association, which has some kind of corporate entity which is has the bylaws and the dec included, if that goes away, if that's dissolved the corporate entity, then the whole thing is gone. So I would ask you, if you if Metro yeah, if the metro district takes on that as per the clause you cited where in where is the document? Because in order to, I'm sorry. Where is the document? That says your purview in your whatever you have that makes you the same thing is the declarations and bylaws.

Where does it? And you don't tell me now I'm just putting it out. Where does it say that you will provide us with the same covenants? Because if you want to know the truth, if you dissolve the Master Association outright, that means the document that we, when we bought our homes that we had to go with, you know, that everybody did here to be with the master, that means that is going to go away. That's what all the 100% signed on to. Okay, but wait excuse me, let me finish.

David:

But let me tell you, that's not our interpretation. Okay. Okay.

Cynthia:

And I understand that okay. Okay. All right so thank you for pointing that out but im just telling you.

David:

And the interpretation comes from council and the interpretation comes from your own declaration of which I'm a party to and you are and they.

Cynthia:

I understand, I understand. So let me just finish I understand I'm just making this point. So what I would suggest is instead of adopting this resolution that is so clearly negative toward dissolution in favor of dissolution so strongly and so directly, perhaps you say something to the effect of dissolution or some sort of reorganization to allow the sub associations, if they so choose, to get out. But the actual structure could somehow stay in place, and we know we have to pay more. I know the other gentleman said, oh, we don't want to pay more.

We're going to have to pay more. And that's okay. And remember, this was done by our developers, not us, and we cannot form a new one. So that's what I wanted to say. If you could support reorganization in your resolution as well as dissolution, but give them a choice. That's what I would ask.

David:

And while we have not taken that choice away with our resolution, you've heard us say numerous times that we would support a homeowners association be formed.

Cynthia:

We can't form that tho excuse me, we cannot. Well. We need the structure.

David:

The Master Association cannot well, if there is a lawful way for the Master Association in its current form, as you're promoting, to represent just those and not the city. I think I heard you.

Cynthia:

You mean the rest of the homeowners not mean the city?

David:

Those two communities directly forgo the responsibilities of a master, but inherit the responsibilities of those two communities. Since 100% have bought in with it anyway. And have it in place. Have it in place is something that we are not going to derail by virtue of this resolution. We do not have a vote in that regard.

The residents as a whole and their delegates have it. All we are doing is compelling them from a master perspective to dissolve, not a sub, but a master to dissolve as well as, to do it lawfully and with transparency. Because we believe that what you're asking for can happen within the same time frame that they're working now.

Cynthia:

And I, I think that you have a that's a good point. I don't see the need for this resolution if you're not going to include in it or some other way, you know, a reorganization, a dissolution or reorganization to meet the needs. Just as it was put in that August 20th letter. Letter. Exactly. And I think that that is not much to ask.

Keep it all in there, but say or a dissolution or reorganization, because your resolution leaves no doubt that you say get rid of it.

David:

And and without further clarification, I don't think that we would be able to give or add that condition to tonight's resolution. Not knowing whether lawfully they can be reorganized within that current structure and represent two communities as opposed to a whole. I was led to believe and told by a representative of the property management company, that, not only was representation not something that the owners wanted, but sufficiently did not want to the tune of they were withdrawing any work on any proposal they were going to make.

But all that being said, I'm just, I don't believe that we're either hampering, or moving forward with this, and believe with our support that if there's a chance that you folks can, query a HOA. We can't. We don't know. We cannot sir. that we're behind you in that regard. We cannot. But if if between today and the ultimate dissolution that we're in, that we're just publicly supporting. You're urging. In between that period of time, you can.

Cynthia:

Well, let me say this. Haven't did you you looked at the letter today, you saw what it said. You know, there is a special delegate meeting this Thursday, the 27th. As Chris said. And you know that there is another meeting on the second to elect the board members and to move forward with a presentation as to what they're going to propose. So my suggestion, and I would ask this sincerely put off the vote on this resolution until after Monday and see what they come up with. That's what Chris said.

Let's go to the meeting and see what they come up with. And I don't think that's too much to ask. We're just asking you to put it off and if you know, if you have to put it off until March, I'm sorry, but you are potentially helping to save 35 of your property owners who believe it or not, this is going to affect the city. Just as as Gary said as Mr. Jensen said. Thank you. *Inaudible speaking*

Describer: Cynthia takes her seat. Peter Thomas approaches the podium.

Peter Thomas:

You referred in the declaration to, I believe it was paragraph 5.16 that if the if the Master Association's not in around any more than the metro district takes over. Did you get a legal opinion on that, on what that reads? Yes.

And that's what your council and I'm assuming you're the council that said that. I mean, to me, I just reread it and I'm not an attorney, but it's I think the gist of what they were trying to get at is that the Master Association and the metro district will work together.

Correct. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. And it goes on to say that if for some reason the one of the parties refuses to or is not able to, then the other will come in until such time as that other party can live up to its obligation. Comma, if any or ever. I don't think it contemplated in there that one will go away indefinitely, that there's a reason why one firm cannot.

David:

And that's fair but in the, in the document itself, there are provisions for dissolution. The forefathers, if you will, contemplated it and it's there. Okay. So for that reason, I think that it could be construed that they did contemplate.

Peter:

That's why I was asking you if it was your legal opinion, because, again, not an attorney, but I read it and I don't think it alluded to that at all, so.

David:

Yeah. I'm with you hear you, hear you.

Robert:

While we have a couple moments. I just wanted to commend David. He has been working effortlessly and perseverated on trying to figure out everything and trying to make them do the right thing, which led to this. He has scoured through huge boxes of documents, and he's pretty much the authority. If someone else on this board that has over 3000 HOA’s that he's dealt with there so. They're doing their best they can and it's 35 homes, I'll buy the pizza. We have to come together somehow for you, and, but hopefully they'll be looking at it. Thank you.

David:

Supreme.

Robert:

I hope it doesn't take Supreme. It should be just cheese. Did I answer the question. I didn't catch im sorry. No, I'm just I was just patting you on the back and wanted everybody know that I've seen it up close and personal how much personal time and executive time and regular time and there's nobody that knows this better than you. And it's just amazing amount of work that you have done in person.

David:

Thank you. What my colleagues and I would, would, like to recognize, the spirit and, sincerity, from on this matter, exemplified by the folks here tonight and, and, those that may be online feeling, having the same, thought in mind. What what what would be the harm in delaying this and giving, the Master Association, giving these two upcoming meetings on the 27th and the second time to, effect a positive outcome, to what we believe is inevitably the right thing to do?

And as Robert indicated, as as all my colleagues have indicated and, the district is out for the whole, not for any one person or one entity. It's with that that we've decided, unless there's any further comments or questions or concerns by my colleagues here that we're going to defer a vote on this resolution, as asked until our March meeting. Any other comments, questions, colleagues? Very good. Item, the same item on the agenda. We move into the drought mitigation plan, as many may recall.

That was a question this board asked the previous administration, where was it? It was on the heels of, of, this board being told that if if it didn't rain, all the parks were going to go brown. And we simply asked, well is that just going to be a surprise and that's why you're bringing it up? And the answer was yes. It was going to be a surprise. No one would be happy with it and be prepared to field the calls from the residents. That was unacceptable, in our opinion.

And, and, so we have endeavored over the course of the last, as many months to come up with a drought plan. And, and we have done so, my colleagues and I, have in proof a drought plan, that is going to be integrated into here's the artwork, by the way, integrated into our website and integrated into our community if, if approved That incorporates the help of, some of the, current ancillary, signage that happens and that occurs and that is present in most forests. As everyone knows, we are a part of the Black Forest.

And and, as many of us, come in and out of forest, there's one constant figure that that we see or typically see and that's, Smokey the Bear. And Smokey generally has a message as it relates to fire risk. That's not, what our message is here as much as there has recently been adopted by, the United States Forest Department and other governmental entities, a correlation between higher education, those of the Ivy League and and, those that are in the industry that if there's a drought, there is a higher risk of fire. So it's with that correlation and that support and that backing, that we were going to present a drought plan to the community, with the help of Smokey and, and, but with a, a message about drought severity, seconded by or subtitled, to include fire risk as well.

This was never intended to spook or interfere with anyone's quality of life. It was never it's never been contemplated that it would be hard to find. It would require those that were surfing on the website to find it, otherwise it didn't exist. We have some collaboration and cooperation from some private property owners and, and, property, that we own, that we are contemplating utilizing. We also have embarked on a relationship with our fire and police protection folks at South Metro and other entities that provide support, both financially and manpower wise. And, and so as we consider rolling that out, ironically, I got in the mail, a postcard, from my homeowner's insurance company, State Farm. I don't know if anybody else got it. It was one that is entitled, Protection and Peace of Mind. And they have now decided without any input from us or me, that they are going to automatically enroll us into a program, to help protect our property from wildfire wildfire peril.

And and so this is becoming big business, apparently. And luckily for now, at least, they're advocating it would come at no cost. But, again, albeit this was not about fire, there is that correlation. It's more about drought. And most of all, it's about communicating with the homeowners as they come and go, to and from their homes in and out of the city. If they are reminded, when and if there is drought condition that there may be a different color to the grass in the common areas, and not to be surprised, but that that would be common sense in a drought condition or drought scenario.

We never want to take our residents by surprise, but we want to be as proactive as we can to be, visually out there messaging, what we're doing and, and, how we're doing it. And, this is part and parcel to that. Are there any other questions about that program? I know that I have absolutely exhausted everyone in this effort to have a drought plan. Are there any remaining comments, questions or concerns? Director Merritt.

Robert:

Just want to say, happy to join one of the other upscale communities in the Denver area that also has this and I think our sign looks a little better. Thank you.

David:

Was not without your help, Director Merritt, Director Crew.

Denise:

Your sign looks better than I thought it ever would, much better.

David:

I got color ink in my printer. Director Lewis anything? Looks good. Director Lowen? Looks fine, I like it. We'll take the next step. Thank you for your support. Thank you, everybody, for coming tonight. Unless there are any other director's matters, I think that we have done a heck of a job tonight. I know that the residents here would applaud, reflecting same. Thank you very much for coming. We really appreciate you again.

Board Voting All Speak:

Can I get a motion to adjourn? I'll make a motion to adjourn. I'll second. I'll second. I'll third it.

Describer: Meeting Adjourned. The video fades to black.